Elsevier

Automatica

Volume 33, Issue 8, August 1997, Pages 1549-1554
Automatica

Brief paper
Stable inversion for nonlinear systems

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-1098(97)00064-2Get rights and content

Abstract

There have been two recent major developments in output tracking for nonlinear systems, and our first main contribution is to relate these. Under appropriate assumptions, we show that the bounded.solution of the partial differential equation of Isidori and Byrnes for each trajectory of an exosystem must be given by an integral representation formula of Devasia, Chen and Paden. Under restrictive hypotheses, Devasia, Chen and Paden develop a Picard process that converges to the solution of the integral equation. This solution to the integral equation is also a bounded solution to a dynamical equation driven by the desired outputs. In aircraft applications our nonlinear systems are perturbations of ‘pure-feedback systems’ with outputs, and we find a solution to the stable inversion problem i.e. finding bounded controls and bounded state trajectories in response to bounded output signals, in two steps. The first step ignores the perturbation error and computes the major part of the desired control and corresponding state trajectory. The second step computes the remaining control and states by finding a noncausal and stable solution to an ‘error-driven dynamical equation’. In other words, the method of Devasia, Chen and Paden is applied to an ‘error system’ and not to the full system. This two-step procedure is the second main contribution of this paper. Throughout this paper it is assumed that our nonlinear systems have vector relative degree.

References (16)

  • G. Meyer et al.

    Applications of nonlinear transformations to automatic flight control

    Automatica

    (1984)
  • H. Bremermann
  • D. Chen

    An iterative solution to stable inversion of nonminimum phase systems

  • S. Devasia et al.

    Exact output tracking for nonlinear time varying systems

  • S. Devasia et al.

    Nonlinear inversion-based output tracking

    IEEE Trans. Autom. Control

    (1996)
  • B.A. Francis

    The linear multivariable regulator problem

    SIAM J. Control Optim.

    (1977)
  • J.K. Hale
  • L.R. Hunt et al.

    Design for multi-input nonlinear systems

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (183)

  • Adaptive neural control for uncertain constrained pure feedback systems with severe sensor faults: A complexity reduced approach

    2023, Automatica
    Citation Excerpt :

    During the past decades, the tracking control problem for uncertain pure feedback systems has attracted tons of attentions owing to its theoretical challenges (see Huang et al. (2020), Wang and Huang (2002) and Zhang and Ge (2008) and the references therein), which mainly arise from the fact that all the inputs/states therein appear in the nonlinear functions implicitly, making an explicit inverting control design impossible. Meanwhile, there are many practical systems, e.g., aircraft flight control system (Huang et al., 2020), mechanical systems (Ferrara & Giacomini, 2000) and biochemical systems (Hunt & Meyer, 1997), that fit into such kind of system, making this problem also of practical necessaries. There are various approaches/techniques presented in the literature to tackle the tracking problem for pure feedback systems, wherein the mainstream approaches on dealing with the nonaffine functions include dynamical inversion method (Lee et al., 2016), mean value theorem (Song et al., 2015), Taylor series expansion (Leu et al., 2005) and contraction mapping method (Park et al., 2005).

  • Enhancement of nonlinear signal-based control to estimate earthquake excitations from absolute acceleration responses of nonlinear structures

    2022, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
    Citation Excerpt :

    To enhance the feedforward controller, a model that considers nonlinear characteristics is an option for generating the feedforward control input if the model is invertible and stable. However, inversions of nonlinear models are much more complicated than those of linear systems [8], and causality also becomes a matter of issue [9,10]. Thus, inversions of nonlinear models are commonly computed to obtain a feedforward input offline, where non-causal computational methods requiring iterations or complicated algorithms are also available [11–13].

  • Tracking with prescribed performance for linear non-minimum phase systems

    2020, Automatica
    Citation Excerpt :

    Therefore, the open-loop control input is non-causal in this case. Extensions of this approach are discussed in Devasia (1999), Devasia and Paden (1998), Hunt and Meyer (1997) and Taylor and Li (2002) for instance. Noteworthy is also the approach presented by Isidori (2000), where stabilization of non-minimum phase systems by dynamic compensators is considered.

View all citing articles on Scopus

This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Alberto Isidori under the direction of Editor Tamer Başar.

View full text